According to the introduction of Zhangpu County Procuratorate, on March 2 1 this year, Zhangpu County Public Security Bureau filed a case investigation on Lan for the crime of causing serious injuries by negligence, and decided to detain him in criminal detention the next day. On March 29th, Lan was arrested on suspicion of negligent death. On April 5, Zhangpu County Procuratorate decided not to approve the arrest because of unclear facts and insufficient evidence. On April 6, Lan was released on bail pending trial. 65438+1On October 27th, Zhangpu County Public Security Bureau directly transferred Lan to Zhangpu County Procuratorate for review and prosecution for the crime of negligent death. 165438+1October14th, Zhangpu County Procuratorate issued a notice saying that the case is currently under review and prosecution, and Lan has not been prosecuted.
It is understood that the procuratorate believes that Lan should foresee the consequences of chasing thieves and pulling people in rainy days, and Lan's behavior should constitute a crime of negligent death. In this regard, lawyers expressed different views.
Lan's behavior does not constitute the crime of negligent death.
Wu Huaixuan, a public interest lawyer of Henan Lawyers Association, said that negligent death refers to the behavior that the actor did not foresee that his behavior would cause others to die, or that he had foreseen and thought it could be avoided, thus causing others to die. According to the law, if the harmful consequences are unpredictable, it will not be punished as a crime.
In this case, although Lanmou objectively caused the thief's death, this result was caused by unforeseeable reasons, not because of Lanmou's fault. So the thief's death should be an accident. If Lan can foresee and judge the danger of his behavior, but still make corresponding behavior, it may constitute a crime. According to the case disclosed at present, Lan's behavior does not constitute the crime of negligent death.
Chasing thieves belongs to self-defense.
Many netizens think that Lan's pursuit of thieves belongs to self-defense. How to determine the law?
Lawyer Xia of Henan Guoyin Law Firm said that it is justifiable defense and does not bear criminal responsibility to take actions to stop illegal infringement against those who are committing illegal infringement and cause damage to the infringed person. According to the provisions of Article 82 of China's Criminal Procedure Law, a citizen who is committing a crime or who is found immediately after committing a crime can be immediately handed over to a public security organ, a people's procuratorate or a people's court for handling. This is the right given by law to citizens to fight crime. The law encourages citizens to crack down on crime, but it cannot exceed the legal limit. In this case, in the face of the thief's illegal infringement, Lanmou stopped to chase the thief, which was a legitimate defense.
Lan's behavior is not defensive.
After chasing for a while, Lanmou reached out and grabbed Chen Mou's left sleeve from behind, and Chen Mou fell to the ground and died. Is it excessive defense?
Wu Huaixuan said that excessive defense is an act of defense that obviously exceeds the necessary limit, causing great damage and should bear criminal responsibility. Satisfying the above characteristics constitutes excessive defense.
Xia said that from the official details of the case, in this case, Lan's behavior of chasing thieves was reasonable and legal. Lan only grabbed the thief's left sleeve, and the thief fell to the ground and escaped from Lan's control. Grasping the thief's sleeve in the process of catching a thief is an extremely normal action, which is not beyond the scope of reasonable rights protection stipulated by law, and is also in line with the way the public handles illegal and criminal acts. The thief fell to the ground not because he was knocked down by Lan, but because he broke free. On the whole, Lanmou's behavior does not belong to excessive defense.